Rojo wrote:

"yes I beleive we will be obliged by the UN to take in more people, particularly climate change refugees"

Maybe, maybe not. Personally I think it's very unlikely but we'll both have to wait and see what transpires.

What if we decline to do what the UN requires, assuming your forecast of UN action proves correct? Many countries do ignore the UN.

Short of an outright threat of really damaging sanctions, or some sort of UN mandated military action, I cannot see any Australian government opening the refugee floodgates. Not if it wanted to survive the next election anyway.

Rojo, Australia simply does not have the water nor the arable land to support 30 million people. In particular, Australia has a real problem with water scarcity, irrespective of your 8% figure. Remember, less than .0008% of the total water on the planet if fit for human usage.

In the case of the planet's driest continent, population growth is pure madness, especially with the looming spectre of climate change. As the CSIRO has outlined, climate change will lead to less rainfall in the southern part of Australia, thus reducing its capacity to sustain a large population even further.

Population growth will only make life worse for those already here. Forgive me for having the misguided impression that Governments were meant to improve the lives of their citizens, not diminish them.

Tortasaurus,
Whenever we talk about demographers, the name of Bob Birrel and Monash Uni in Melbourne comes up. He and his team are very well regarded. The last report by him that I read was a few years ago and, from memory, the main benerficeries of migration were (1) Migrants and (2) Big business and developers. I think he used the term doubtful or probramatical if Australia and Australians received a benefit from migration. I'll stand corrected on this as it is only from memory and there could be a later report. Your NZ report seems to say something similar.

I do not think that report recomended a population figure.

Boaz,
I tend to agree with the 25 million max as not only serious problems with infastructure and water, but also any more would badly affect our standard of living.

I am against family reunion as criteria for immigration. Others can apply and join queue. I also disagree about our fertility rate replacing immigration. There are too many people in the world already and we can easily adjust the numbers we want by immigration.

rojo,
The problem of stats like use only 8% of our water is that it is not where we need itand the cost of getting it is prohibative.

Stephany,
You are right, no one has a right to migrate here. We are generous in allowing others to come here and share in our good fortune. Our forefathers made our good life by their blood, sweat and tears.

Well I guess we could snub the rest of the world and shun the UN. Since our economy relies so heavily on trade any sanctions would be painful.
Please note I didn't say we would all choose 30 million, just that that is what I think it will be. And could be done comfortably.
Will we be invaded by the UN? Not likely, but I would be concerned about how our standard of living would be viewed by our neighbours.

No, I don't think our govt will throw open the doors to Refugees, I think we would be better served getting to "carrying capacity" through skilled immigration, and thus not be expected to accept unreasonable propotions of refugees.

rojo

You repeat the line that unless Australia accepts large numbers of immigrants it will bear the brunt of international sanctions. Are there precedents for this? Japan would be the stand out country not embracing mass immigration, yet I am not aware of any mass international hatred resultant from this. Are you?

Rojo, the water shortages currently faced by our capital cities are indicative of our limited carrying capacity. Based on water scarcity, it is arguable that we have already surpassed our optimum population level.

May I ask why are you so hellbent on inflicting further pain on the Australian population?

For example, you assert that Australia could sustain 30 million "comfortably". Yet, according to the CSIRO, population growth will result in an increase in water scarcity, increased green house gas emissions, a worsening of Australia's trade balance due to more imports and higher consumption of domestic production, overuse of agricultural soils, marine fisheries and domestic supplies of oil and gas, and a decline in urban air quality, river quality and biodiversity.

Is this your idea of "comfortable"?